ArticlePloS one2026
Is there a "weekend effect" in adenoma detection rate?A single-center retrospective study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe "weekend effect"-inferior patient outcomes on weekends-has been reported across healthcare. Its impact on colonoscopy quality, particularly the adenoma detection rate (ADR), a key predictor of colorectal cancer risk, has not been fully established. This study investigated whether a weekend effect exists for ADR in a large cohort and analyzed potential contributing factors.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy from January 2022 to December 2023. Patients were categorized into Weekend (Saturday/Sunday) and Weekday (Monday-Friday) groups. The primary outcome was ADR (proportion with ≥1 adenoma). Data on demographics, withdrawal time, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and endoscopist experience (Junior <5 years, Senior ≥5 years) were collected. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors independently associated with adenoma detection. Stratified analyses by patient subgroups, withdrawal time, and individual endoscopists were performed.
resultsOf 16,550 colonoscopies (4,435 Weekend, 12,115 Weekday), ADR was significantly lower on weekends (24.1% vs. 26.2%, p = 0.006). Median withdrawal time was shorter on weekends (3.61 vs. 4.59 minutes, p < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders, weekend procedures were independently associated with lower ADR (aOR 0.892, 95% CI: 0.821-0.970, p = 0.007), indicating decreased odds of adenoma detection. Other independent predictors included female sex (aOR 0.613, p < 0.001), increasing patient age (aOR 1.050/year, p < 0.001), adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥6; aOR 1.407, p < 0.001), and procedure by a senior endoscopist (aOR 1.164, p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed that the weekend effect was significant in specific patient groups compared to their weekday counterparts: females (aOR 0.868, p = 0.022), patients aged 50-59 years (aOR 0.698, p < 0.001), and those with inadequate preparation (BBPS<6; aOR 0.640, p = 0.010). The lower weekend ADR was primarily attributed to two junior endoscopists, with no significant effect observed among senior endoscopists.
conclusionsA significant weekend effect on ADR was confirmed, principally mediated by shorter withdrawal times and concentrated among junior endoscopists. The effect disproportionately affected women, middle-aged patients, and those with poor bowel preparation. Quality improvement efforts should therefore prioritize enforcing guideline-adherent withdrawal times, optimizing bowel preparation, and providing targeted support to less-experienced endoscopists during weekend services to standardize colonoscopy quality across all days of the week.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.